Creation ex nihilo

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br />Editted by Mark.

Skarp did you mean: Why don't we just be friendly and discuss the beginning of creation without heated debates and punctuation attenuated verbal assault. I am sure a good night's sleep and some thought by everyone can show tomorrow to be a day of logical discussion, a day of calm, cool collective thought where civilized people can play nicely together.

No more talk aimed at each other please. We are scientists, not fools.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Thanks Mark .... I couldn't have said it any better. [)]

Mark,

Thanks, but don't be too hard on him. After all, I'm giving him a pretty hard time, and probably skirting close to the line we try to keep others from crossing. But my focus is on what he is saying (or not saying, actually) rather than on him. I believe that keeps me on the side of the Good Guys.

I have been hoping that he would prove me wrong about calling him a troll. But it seems pretty clear now that if he had one definition (let alone 10 definitions) for the word "nothing" he would have posted it by now and gotten that apology from me. Definitions are one thing that trolls can't deal with. Kind of like vampires and crosses.

Regards,
LB

BTW, if anyone out there thinks I'm being unreasonable about this I'd like to hear from you. If you'd rather do it off line, that's OK.

Words of support would not be unwelcome, either.

This article has to be of interest to the people who are thinking seriously about the concept of the infinite. www.discover.com/issues/dec-95/features/infinityplusonea599/
Surreal numbers [][8D] Great stuff!! It's a very well thought out article and if we all read it then we will be singing from the same hymn sheet (perhaps[])

Let's go with Cantor, for the moment, with the idea of the countable infinite set as the aleph null realm of the matter monad. Well, it's gappy, this is why it's countable in principle but not in actuality. If I say 1 2 3 4 5 . . . and 2 4 6 8 10 . . . can be placed in one to one correspondence, then that is the proof that the two infininite sets are the same size. I don't have to count them, because if I could they wouldn't be infinite.

Now, I can close order pack the integer points into a matter continuum. What about those gaps? We fill the gaps with another infinite set, the set of the real numbers. Cantor proved that we cannot label each real with an integer . The infinite set of real numbers is uncountable, aleph one. It's a larger infinity. This he likened to the continuum of the ether monad. How do we stack them?

The universe, as continuum, has to be an infinite set of at least the same size as the aleph one of the ether infinite set. It's aleph one or higher. It contains the ether monad set and the matter monad set, and the distribution in this continuum is not uniform.

Now lets hypothesise that these two types of infinity are those of zero to the speed of light. Faster than light i.e. the speed of gravity, then becomes a very good candidate for our "larger" continuum. I would argue that it has to be aleph two, a higher, more subtle, finer infinite. Gravitons are induced to travel at many times c in this stuff. Again how is it stacked?

We need another number system for aleph two. That the finite somehow comes out of the infinite, suggests that the continuum is an aleph two set. It completes the sylogism. If we knew more about it, then we could define division of aleph one sets. Note that it's not a "thing in itself" we know something about it, because we know something about the behavior of infinite sets.

If we look at the surreal numbers, then I think we should take special note of the voids that can occur. How the new number system can perform all the usual maths operations but integration for areas under (certain?) curves.

[] Now, I'm not sure that reading up on surreal numbers will hit us with a, Saul on the road to Damascus moment but it won't do us any harm either.

(edited) A sudden thought for those of a theological bent. The infinite becomes finite, perishes and returns into itself as the self determined unity of the infinite and finite. Ring any bells?

This is JC [][8D] if we can get the Christian church to say, "god doesn't exist but is real," then it's a step in the right direction. Of course that would make the Paraklete the main player. I remember as a kid thinking that there was a big mouthy, gaudy parakeet sitting on my shoulder, on orders from Big G. That was about the only thing I liked about the church, If I had a time machine I think I'd go back and bump off St. Paul. Something horribly sexually repressed about that guy.

Yet the word paraklete comes from the Greek, para kalow, to call upon, be with. Doing a Long John Silver impression shows that the paraclete at least has a sense of humour. The dad is pretty awful, the son, a bit of a hippy; it must have been great fun around the breakfast table with the three of them [8D][][}][}]

Hi everyone
I've been following this discusion for a while, and it seems as thogh everyone talking about the same thing fron different point of view.
If I understand correctley (and please inform me if I'm wrong), the argument is "is the big bang imply a begining and a creation from 'nothingnes' (whatever that mean)?"
TVF claim in one of his replies that the universe eithet existed for ever or else had to be created from nothingness.
I think that what Fpop, Skarp and the rest saying is that the universe in its present form as its percivable by us is finite, which dosent mean that it came from "nothing".
All it mean is that at some point in the unknown universe (before people, opinion and theories existed) an event occur that led to the universe in its present form.
I am aware that big bang theory refer to an explotion/expansion/creation of space and time and not an event that took place in a pre existing space, but it dosent sound like anyone here says that the complete big bang theory its true, all that is claimed its that a big bang sort of event could have happend in the past in an infinite universe which led to the present day universe
BTW Skarp's "1st state" does not require a creation or a begining, it can be infinite.

modu

If I can make a proposition, and please don't glance over this message.

Why don't the interested people create an outline of their position, defining their points and verbage. Then everyone can evaluate and debate each position using some evidence or experiments to support their assertion. I like to call this the scientific method.


Mark Vitrone

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I've been following this discusion for a while, and it seems as thogh everyone talking about the same thing fron different point of view.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is mostly correct with the exception tvanflandern, his arguement does not come from the land of Oz, as he might call it []
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If I understand correctley (and please inform me if I'm wrong), the argument is "is the big bang imply a begining and a creation from 'nothingnes' (whatever that mean)?"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Some here will accept the Big Bang as a very viable option, tvanflandern will reject this entirely, while I find it to be very objectionable, and am extremely close to total rejection of this possibility. There is likely total agreement that the Big Bang implies creation from nothingness however.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">TVF claim in one of his replies that the universe either existed forever, or else had to be created from nothingness.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> This is an accepted logical conclusion from my standpoint also.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think that what Fopp, Skarp and the rest are saying is that the universe in its present form as its percivable by us is finite, which dosent mean that it came from "nothing".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Can't speak for others on this one, but my take on this is that the universe will be perceived as being infinite, while it is in fact finite. It is not possible to escape reality for a finite view of the universe. If we could travel at C in any direction, we would see what we see now. We could travel at C forever, and the universe would look the same at all times. This is because the universe is being made at C. In other words the universe is like an expanding balloon, wherein that ballon expands at C. The material of the balloon is not being pushed out by whats inside. It is moving outward at C on it's own accord. So we can understand why the universe will be seeen as infinite, while it is in fact finite. There is no way to reach the material of the balloon if our speed limit is C. Thusly our view of the universe will always be the same if we traveled at C in any direction, for any length of time.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">All it mean is that at some point in the unknown universe (before people, opinion and theories existed) an event occur that led to the universe in its present form.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> You are in mixed company here, so an explanation is in order here for this assertion. Can't say that I have an answer that I'd make some gesture with a sword, as if I'd stake my life on it. More later, as some thought is required, as I'm not sure I'd used the word event.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">BTW Skarp's "1st state" does not require a creation or a begining, it can be infinite.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I do believe I agree here, that is of course, that you are referring to the state nothing.